There’s no “just” about it

5 comments - Leave a comment

“They could have brought (the baby) to a hospital, a fire station or police station to a staffed worker and turned them over and said, ‘I am under the Baby Safe Haven Law, and I just need to drop this baby off to you. I don’t know what else to do,’” said Renee Marcou, of Baby Safe Haven New England. (source)

Right. And then the Safe Haven centers will turn right around and get the media involved, who will start broadcasting it all over the evening news and websites. Just like they always do. Silly me, I thought the purpose of Safe Haven laws was to provide parents a safe, legal and anonymous way to give up a baby they can’t care for. When you blab about it to the media and start naming drop-off locations, times and descriptions of babies, the anonymity isn’t there any longer. No wonder so many newborns wind up being drowned, tossed in dumpsters or simply abandoned. The likelihood of getting away with it is almost greater than it is if you follow the “law” that is also supposed to protect you and shield you from scrutiny.

Grrr. I wasn’t planning on blogging right now, but that was something I HAD to get off my chest.

(0)
 

5 responses to “There’s no “just” about it” - Jump to comment form

  1. Charity wrote on #

    And that’s my problem with the “Safe Haven” laws. If a baby is dropped off there, they insist upon trying to find the parents – and at least where I am, they’ll prosecute them for abandonment if they find them! I guess they completely missed the points about it being anonymous and it being a way to legally give up the child without being charged with anything.

    Charity’s last blog entry: Twitch Twitch

  2. Shauna wrote on #

    My mother and I had a conversation about this exact subject today. For one, I don’t know how anyone could not want their child in the first place (why not adopt out right away if that’s the case). Second of all Anonymous doesn’t mean blabbing about it. There should be no details released whatsoever. I think there should be new policies set in place.

  3. Wow, I didn’t realize that Safe Haven wasn’t very, umm, safe. That’s completely horrible that something that could have such amazing intentions could be skewed in such a bad way. That infuriates me. I completely understand how you feel. :(
    Caitlin’s last blog entry: Focusing on what’s important.

  4. Ranee wrote on #


    For one, I don’t know how anyone could not want their child in the first place (why not adopt out right away if that’s the case).

    I wonder the same thing, but being in the foster care system and seeing how parents can treat kids instead of just giving them up assures me I’ll never fully understand the mind of most of these mothers. I say mother’s because most of the father’s have never been involved that I could see.

    Jenn, I’m not sure if we even have the safe haven law here in Indiana. Everyone kept saying that the one little boy we discussed that was left at WalMart in Indy should have been given to a safe haven place. Well, it doesn’t seem so safe after all. They didn’t stop until they found this kid’s mother. I have no idea what happened, they wanted to charge her with abandonment, but if safe haven states do the same crap even when people follow the rules then what are parents to do? It’s almost like we’re giving them not other option, or so it seems to them.

 

Leave a Reply

*


What is 10 + 2 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:


CommentLuv badge